England: Weapon wielding householders

[squarecanopy 0]

I keep a weapon nearby.

It is interesting to read all these as our perspectives and experiences are so varied. I keep a short barreled shotgun (1/2" over minimum legal) in my front closet. I live out in the woods and it is useful to scare off the occasional mountain lion that wanders into my yard so that he does not eat my dogs. I don't feel the need for protection from other humans as much as a city dweller, but it would take the cops so long to respond should I have an emergency with an intruder that I have to be ready and willing to provide my own protection, so the shotgun is necessary but I hope never needed. Just a small price that I pay for living 12 miles from town.

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[Royd 0]

With the seemingly indifference towards weapons or a need for self defense, I have got to wonder what the children did for fantasy play back in the day.

We had cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, pirates, and even occasionally, Redcoats and colonials, all of them involving weapons of some sort.
Does the usual child play involve going to the corner pub and getting pissed at the end of the day?

[Douva 0]

Quote

Quote

John, have you read The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies, by David B. Kopel?

No, but I've heard about it. Sounds like a good read. And I'm a big fan of David Kopel, with all he does for 2nd Amendment rights.

I can't give a full critique until I've finished reading it, but it definitely seems like a "must read" for ANYONE involved in the gun control debate. He shoots holes in all of the "This type of gun control works in this other country, so it should work here" arguments that both sides love to use. He seems to be making the argument that gun control in America has to be based on anlalysis of AMERICAN history, AMERICAN culture, and AMERICAN crime/violence.

I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

[Stumpy 284]

Sounds like he is exactly right. And the opposite is true as well.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Trae 1]

Yeah there's lots of things that can be picked up and used .
Trouble is in my experience mostly nothing will be at hand just when I need it. I'll be dithering around in blissful ignorance and some dribbling psychopath will decide to strike... usually from behind.

I like the replies that say they'll just use anything. This is the reality for most of us who don't go around toting 1911's , 454Casuls or broadswords.

Going through life with a deadly weapon handy to defend yourself can be fun for a while but eventually most of us would be hankering for a more peaceful place to live.
.... And more effective law enforcement .

[mnealtx 0]

Does law enforcement have a duty to specific individuals, there in the UK? In the US it does not...all the more reason to keep the means to protect yourself.

As for a weapon...to quote Jeff Cooper: "Any gun will do, if YOU will do."

If the will to resist isn't there, no weapon will be of use.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Scoop 0]

A police officer has a duty of care over any person in the UK. Officers have been sacked for driving past people who needed medical help or who have been committing offences when they have been off duty and failed to act. Hence the term 'never off duty'.

That duty of care, however, doesn't replace the individuals right to defend themselves. The law is very simple and clear on this:

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

Also worth noting (direct from the CPS):

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken...".

British law is very flexible in allowing use of force for self defence. If you had a shotgun in a lock box in your house and you thought you heard a person or a group in or on your property and had nothing else to hand it would be considered proportionate for you to draw that weapon. If, however, you shoot them in the back while they are running away, as in the famous R v MARTIN case, then that would not be neccesary as there was no threat of violence at that time and as he rightfully found out. You will go to prison for a long time